Jeff Mitchell: Why we're seeking the cop names

So on Monday the City of Salinas received a letter from attorneys representing Gannett Newspapers Inc., the owner of The Californian; the Hearst Corporation, owner of the KSBW-TV; the News Press & Gazette Co., the owners of KION-TV; and Entravision Communications Co.

The letter asks the city to reconsider its denial of a request to release the names of Salinas police officers involved in the recent spate of deadly shootings.

The Californian was the first among Monterey County news organizations to file a California Public Records Act request to get the names.

We and other local news outlets that have filed similar, subsequent PRA requests have done so because we believe strongly that the public has a right to know the identities of those who can invoke the most powerful act any government can carry out on those its governs — the taking of a life in the name of preserving public safety.

We're not the only ones to believe this.

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that with some exceptions the names of those cops in officer-involved shootings must be made public.

The exception to the court's ruling that would allow a city to block such a release is if the city can show there are specific, credible and current threats to the individual officers involved in the deadly encounters.

And there's the ethical rub.

Speaking as the reporter who filed The Californian's PRA, I believe that on behalf of our readers, we should be able to inspect these names.

Specifically, I want to know whether any of these officers were involved in more than one of these three shootings.

But, mind you, that information — in and of itself — may not necessarily wave a red flag, so to speak.

There are dozens of other officers — maybe hundreds — in the U.S. that have been in multiple officer-involved shootings that were later deemed justifiable homicides. Our own Salinas chief of police, Kelly McMillin, is among them. McMillin's service and dedication to the city is without question. City Manager Ray Corpuz Jr.'s decision to elevate him to chief was and is a good one.

To be sure, some cops never draw their weapons during their careers while others find themselves in the unenviable position of having to defend themselves or others from deadly threats multiple times in multiple situations.

That's just the random nature of law enforcement.

City Attorney Chris Callihan said in his denial to us that the names of the officers involved in the March 20, May 9 and May 20 shootings cannot be released because the city has received threats on their lives.

I think it's fair to say that everyone at The Californian shares the city's concerns. No one wants to see one of our cops or a member of his or her family hurt. No one.

But I want to examine the names so we can at least determine whether the same cop or cops was involved in multiple shootings. If that were the case, the answer may be to do absolutely nothing. On the other hand, if there's a cop with multiple shootings on his or her record, we may well have a case where an officer needs re-training or possibly needs to be dismissed from the force.

But whether to publish their names — assuming the city reverses itself or that The Californian prevails legally — I am really not so sure.

I know there are probably journalists out there driving hard on this one. That's fine. I will tell you that should we acquire the names of these officers and should we deem it appropriate not to publish their names, we hope you will understand and appreciate our discretion.

But again, it may well be in the best interests of our readers to reveal their identities.

And while I'm sure that I will have input on our decision, that call will be made in concert with and by folks several pay grades above me.

The trick here for us in the media is finding some middle ground with this awful thing. We need to do our job, which is to bring information to you. And the vast majority of the time we do just that without anyone getting hurt.

In this case, though, it may not be like that.

As always, your input is valuable — to me, to us. Send me an email and let us know what you think on this issue. My email can be found below.

For Salinas City Council, it's Tax D-Day

So by now I'm sure that most of my readers are aware that today's City Council meeting may prove pretty pivotal in the history of the city.

Sure, on one hand, approving two ballot tax measures may seem almost ministerial in nature at this point — especially after all the debate that's taken place.

But on the other hand, the action could end up starting a financial revolution at City Hall and the city and the services it provides you now — specifically in terms of the public safety.

Tonight, the council will be tasked with considering approving these measures for the Nov. 4 General Election ballot:

>> A generalized 1-cent increase in the local sales tax rate which if approved by the voters will generate about $20 million a year and finally allow the city to begin rebuilding its emaciated public safety departments.

>> A modernized Utilities Users Tax that will lower the tax rate on some telecommunications devices but widen the coverage of the tax to include cellular phones and tablets, etc. Right now the UUT tax brings in the third-highest tax revenues to the city and the modernization will bring in even more.

The question will be if tonight's vote by the council will be unanimous.

A lot of eyes will be on how District 3 Councilman Steve McShane votes.

Given his political dalliances with the anti-tax right before and after his election to the council, he may vote against it or, just like last week during the council's adoption of the FY 2014-15 budget, he may stay on "vacation" and not show up at all — that way allowing himself the leeway to tell his conservative patrons and supporters that "he didn't vote or against for the tax measure" — a slippery if not accurate position.

Mind you, we do have McShane on video a few months back saying that he would support a general (vs. specific) tax, so maybe the mercurial council member will vote yes

Now, in regard to McShane's seatmate to his left, Councilman Jose Castañeda, expect everything from fireworks to nothing and back.

Heck, he too may bail on this meeting, just like on the budget vote last week.

We'll just have to see.

We do know that it's going to take an unusual five votes for these measures to get approved for the ballot — more than the usual four-person majority.

I also know that based on the polling research there's never been a city more ready than Salinas to vote to hike the sales tax so that a higher quality of life can slowly return.

The polling results strongly show that for better or worse, voters want to leave the decisions on how the money is spent in the hands of the elected council. That's why the polling showed such strong numbers for a general tax measure.

(You'll remember that a specific tax can only be spent on a specific thing — i.e. public safety — and requires a back-braking 66.7 percent of the vote to pass. A general tax requires just 50 percent plus 1 vote and the proceeds can be spent any way a council majority deems appropriate.)

But here's the thing about these specific-tax folk. They're not evil, they're just concerned. They think, as McShane said just last year, that if you give government an open checkbook, it will find a way to spend everything.

Personally, I have more faith in this council.

After all, we all elected them. It's time to trust they'll do the right thing.

Jeff Mitchell covers Salinas Valley politics and government. Under the Dome, a reported opinion column, appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday in print and online. Email him at jemitchell@thecalifornian.com. For quick political hits, check out Under the Dome – The Blog, available most every day at: www.theCalifornian.com